MEMBERS LOUANN VAN DER WIELE CHAIRPERSON LAWRENCE G. CAMPBELL VICE-CHAIRPERSON DULCE M. FULLER SECRETARY ROSALIND E. GRIFFIN, M.D. REV. MICHAEL MURRAY JAMES A. FINK JOHN W. INHULSEN JONATHAN E. LAUDERBACH BARBARA WILLIAMS FORNEY
STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD
211 WEST FORT STREET, SUITE 1410 DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3236 PHONE: 313-963-5553 I FAX: 313-963-5571
MARK A. ARMITAGE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
WENDY A. NEELEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR
SHERRY L. MIFSUD OFFICE ADMINISTRA TOR
ALLYSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER
OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER
JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONIST/SECRETARY
NOTICE OF REPRIMAND (By Consent)
Case No. 16-62-GA Notice Issued: September 9, 2016 Thomas R. Warnicke, P 47148, Beverly Hills, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #76.
1. Reprimand 2. Effective September 9, 2016 The respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a stipulation for a consent order of discipline, in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. The stipulation contains respondent's admissions to the allegations that he committed professional misconduct as the result of his improper use of an IOlTA account from June 2014 through March 2015.
Based upon respondent's admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent held funds other than client or third person funds in an IOlTA account, in violation of MRPC 1.15(a)(3); failed to hold property of his clients or third-persons separate from his own, in violation of MRPC 1.15(d); deposited his own funds (earned fees) into an IOlTA account in excess of the amount reasonably necessary to pay financial institution service charges or fees or to obtain a waiver of service charges or fees, in violation of MRPC 1.15(f); engaged in conduct that was contrary to ethics, in violation of MCR 9.104(3); and engaged in conduct that was in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4). In entering this finding of misconduct, the panel acknowledged the statement contained in paragraph eight of the stipulation for a consent order of discipline that "there is no evidence of misappropriation or misuse of client funds."
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded. Costs re assessed in the amount of $757.57.
ark A. Armitage Dated: September 9, 2016